* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously to grant the parties’ request for a decision on the briefs without oral

argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and

collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

October 6, 2009

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

TERRY HUGH MAHON,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 08-6222

(D.C. No. 5:07-CR-00299-F-2)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before O’BRIEN, PORFILIO, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

In this direct criminal appeal, Terry Hugh Mahon challenges the sufficiency

of the evidence to support his convictions following a jury trial for: 

(1) conspiracy to commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349; (2) mail

fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; (3) money laundering in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 1957(a); and (4) money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 
1 The district court sentenced Mr. Mahon to concurrent prison sentences

totaling thirteen years and entered related restitution and forfeiture orders. 

Mr. Mahon is not appealing the sentences or monetary penalties imposed by the

district court.

-2-

§ 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).1

 Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and having

reviewed the issue de novo in the light most favorable to the government, see

United States v. Roach, __ F.3d __, 2009 WL 2989182, at *8 (10th Cir. Sept. 21,

2009), we conclude that the government presented sufficient evidence at trial to

support Mr. Mahon’s convictions. We therefore affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

The parties have done a thorough job in their briefs summarizing the

background facts and trial proceedings pertaining to Mr. Mahon’s convictions,

and we repeat them here only as necessary to clarify our holding. We also note

that, at its core, this is a fairly simple case based on mostly undisputed facts. As

the government has explained, “[s]imply put, [Mr. Mahon and his coconspirator,

Grover Phillips] ran a scheme in which people paid seventeen percent of the value

of their homes in exchange for a promise to receive the full value of their home

[as a rebate] at the end of five years.” Aplee. Br. at 6. Thus, for purpose of each

of the counts charged against Mr. Mahon (i.e., conspiracy, mail fraud, and money

laundering), the overarching issue for the jury to decide was whether he acted or

conspired to act with a specific intent to defraud in executing the rebate scheme. 

The jury unanimously resolved this issue against Mr. Mahon.
-3-

II. ANALYSIS

As the government has correctly pointed out, “[a]lthough Mr. Mahon

challenges his convictions for conspiracy, mail fraud, and money laundering, his

argument as to each count rests entirely on the proposition that [he] did not intend

to defraud anyone.” Id. at 25; see also Aplt. Br. at 14 (“If the Defendant lacked

the requisite intent to defraud and was therefore not guilty of mail fraud . . ., he

cannot be found guilty of money laundering because the money was not

unlawfully obtained. If the Defendant was acting in good faith without the intent

to defraud he cannot be guilty of conspiracy.”). As Mr. Mahon puts it, he was a

“dreamer not a schemer.” Aplt. Br. at 15. Consequently, because this appeal is

limited to the issue of Mr. Mahon’s fraudulent intent, we do not need to address

the sufficiency of the evidence as it pertained to any other elements in the counts

of conviction.

We conclude that the government presented sufficient evidence at trial to

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Mahon intended to defraud the victims

of the rebate scheme. Specifically, we agree with the government that “[t]he

evidence at trial demonstrated that Mr. Mahon and Mr. Phillips knew that they

were not investing money to generate the required exorbitant returns and that they

would never honor the millions of dollars in rebate claims that would ultimately

be lodged against them.” Aplee. Br. at 15. In light of this evidence, the jury
-4-

could therefore infer that “Mr. Mahon agreed with Mr. Phillips to take money

fraudulently through their rebate program.” Id. at 16.

In reaching this conclusion, we adopt the following arguments from the

government’s well-reasoned brief: 

First, the very nature of Mr. Mahon’s rebate program suggests

a conspiracy to defraud. Mr. Mahon himself acknowledged that the

program required an annual return of fifty-seven percent,

compounded annually. When he made this statement in October of

2001, he also admitted that [Amsterdam Fidelity Business Trust] had

not yet made any high-yield investments. Mr. Phillips, the manager

of the “trading company” on which Mr. Mahon was relying for this

fifty-seven percent return, was far from a financial wizard. He was

merely an acquaintance who had failed in business with Mr. Mahon

in the past and who had never managed a trust. Rather than choosing

an investment firm with a track record, Mr. Mahon chose a new,

uncapitalized business trust that was operated out of Mr. Phillips’s

house in Stillwater and had no insurance or bonds. Mr. Mahon was

in regular contact with Mr. Phillips about the status of investments

and therefore knew throughout the scheme that Amsterdam’s

investment efforts had been unsatisfactory, to put it mildly. Under

these circumstances, the jury was entitled to infer that Mr. Mahon set

up Rebates from the outset as a vehicle for committing fraud in

conjunction with Mr. Phillips.

Second, the jury heard numerous instances in which

Mr. Mahon made false and misleading statements to promote his

scheme and prevent his fraud from being detected. . . . In

[particular], Mr. Mahon lied during his 2001 deposition about his

ability to raid the account that was supposed to be earning fantastic

investment returns.

. . . .

Third, Mr. Mahon demonstrated from the beginning to the end

of the existence of Rebates that his goal was to walk away with as

much money as possible at the expense of victims who expected to

receive a return on their investments. Mr. Mahon and Mr. Large
-5-

received over $900,000 from Amsterdam’s investment funds during

the life of the scheme. This fleecing of the investment corpus is

flatly inconsistent with a legitimate investment enterprise, especially

one that needs to earn over fifty percent in interest every year to

meet its obligations.

. . . .

Fourth, the jury could take into account the changing and

radically expanding nature of Mr. Mahon’s obligations during the

scheme. At the very least, Mr. Mahon and Mr. Phillips knew that

they were running a fraudulent scheme by late 2002, when

Amsterdam’s investments had failed and the Rebates organization

continued to market the rebate coupons and accept money from

victims. . . .

Like Mr. Phillips, Mr. Mahon was aware as early as October of

2001 that Rebates was involved in issuing [rebate] coupons based on

the value of real estate. A reasonable jury could easily conclude that

once Mr. Mahon and Mr. Phillips began accepting money relating to

rebates on real estate, they were operating under an agreement to

defraud those who purchased rebate coupons.

Id. at 16-19, 21, 23 (citations to the record and footnote omitted).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Mr. Mahon’s motion to

seal the presentence report is GRANTED.

Entered for the Court

Timothy M. Tymkovich

Circuit Judge